In the United States artist organizations, anti war groups and over 100 local cities and town councils have sided against their own president. Panic and fear are the new behavioral norms of the day. What is it then, that has anguish disfiguring men’s faces across continents, bull markets turning into lazy bears, oppressors and oppressed – joining hands and sing in chorus? It is obvious that this shared sense of fear and the new patterns of association and disassociation are not uniquely created by a potential war in Iraq; there is something of a greater importance that is at play here. What is then? I suspect my reader is asking. Well I hate to be the bringer of bad news but darkness has enveloped the earth. It is night at the midday hour. Behold, my fellow men, bow your heads or stand in defiance; the empire is here.

On a less dramatized note, a war in Iraq would not essentially turn the American sovereign or president into a Roman emperor. Rather it will dramatically strengthen the idea that after the fall of the Soviet empire we are now living in a unipolar world that is a world with a single pole of power and will serve as a test of that power. Can the United States unilaterally, according to its own accord and judgment, declare war upon another state without being attacked by it and subsequently design for that state a new form of government? If you answer by the affirmative, you believe the United States would now have established a precedent that would allow it to go anywhere in the world just like any emperor to his distant provinces going about his business of policing populations, re-tracing frontiers and designing forms of governments for its own interests. The American administration does not agree with this representation of things, however.

The policy of preemption and the actual negotiations about war in Iraq have no hidden imperial agendas. On the contrary they are the result of a pragmatic approach to the post 9/11 world. A preemptive war would be justified because the terrorists always enjoy the advantage of attacking secretly and by surprise whenever and wherever they wish; and to this new threat the sole possible defense consists in getting them before they can materialize their plans. Their position seems legitimate to this writer.

Advertisement

France and their allies disagree. Although they have not clearly stated that the “empire” is at the gate; there has been talk of a hegemonic power doomed to fail in its aspiration to finally use its strength for the “Good.” French Foreign minister Dominique de Villepin was quoted as saying, “We are convinced of the need for a multipolar world because one power cannot guarantee world peace.” They understand the impact this war could have on their position as world powers and are resolutely engaged to fight it. Beyond their fear of the hegemonic beast they contended that although preemption could somewhat be acceptable, the case to attack Iraq has yet to be made. For them, peace can only come about in a world with many centers of power.

Despite the American administration’s assertion that it does not seek imperial status, if or when the war occurs, the other world leaders will in effect be in the presence of an emperor; a peculiar emperor at best. One denuded of any imperial ambition, one diligently and solely bent on securing peace and freedom. In crude terms, the emperor will not be wearing clothes. But how long can an emperor without clothes remain naked or alive with the potentiality for “infinite” power at the tip of his sword? And in the presence of power-hungry political animals roaming around caves, great walls and Eiffel towers?